Witness Immunity Sought For Gay Service Members

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Source: Associated Press

Gay service members who reveal their sexual orientations during congressional testimony would be immune from forced discharges under a bill introduced Wednesday, as lawmakers prepare to consider repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the U.S. military.

The legislation's author, U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., said the bill is needed to ensure that Congress has reliable and relevant witnesses at its disposal if the House holds hearings next year on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The bill also would protect from retaliatory personnel actions any members of the military who testify for or against lifting the 16-year ban.

"How can there be anything more important than a gay member of the service having the right to testify before the Armed Services Committee of the Congress that he is under the aegis of," Hastings told The Associated Press. "But if they come and testify, that testimony could be used against them under 'don't ask, don't tell.' In my judgment, it's just a question of fairness."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/02/ap/national/main5866934.shtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNewsVideoISP+%28ISP%3A+CBSNews.com%29

[24601]

1. I am a rampant heterosexual! Also, I'm a retired Army Officer and

graduate of the US Military Academy (West Point).

My position on this issue is simple: I didn't choose my sexual orientation, so it's intuitive to me that gays & lesbians didn't choose theirs either. The inference is that sexual orientation is inherent to who you are. And the United States should be better than judging you on what you are rather than on what you do; therefore, sexual orientation should have no bearing on the ability to serve in the military.

Admittedly, this view wasn't accepted all that well among my fellow servicemen & women. I admit that changing the law and letting admitted gays & lesbians serve will affect morale. So, what - we'll get over it just like we overcame the resistance to racial integration. After an initial dip, it recovers and we are the stronger for it.

But there also is the UCMJ, specifically punitive article 125, Sodomy. It includes BJs, eating out and anal sex. On paper, it applies to heterosexual acts as well and I advised my wife to not discuss anything that may or may not have happened in our bedroom. Sodomy carries various maximum punishments:

With consent:
- partner at least 16 - Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years
- with a child 12-15 - Prison time jumps to 20 years. This is the same for intercourse and brings the old saying "15 will get you 20"
- with a child under 12 - life without parole

Any age by force and without consent - life without parole

Why is this significant? Because without changing the UCMJ, the only legal sex available to gay & lesbian service members would be hand-jobs & vibrators. Meanwhile, we straight folk can hump until exhaustion with no legal consequences. Equity requires a change - and I really would like to see BJs made legal for everyone.

[seeinfweggos]

2. why only witesses? immunity for all

repeal dodt

[naaman fletcher]

3. It would be cool then...

If all the gay service members could fly in and the committee chairman would swear them all in so they could say "I'm gay". Let the hearings go on for a year so everyone gets a chance.

[David__77]

4. I never understood how the DADT works.

Can't someone say they're a celibate homosexual and still be in the military? I mean, isn't the policy premised on the military code's prohibition of same sex "sodomy?" In some ways, DADT was a step backwards if it banned those who merely stated that they are gay.